Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.

Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).

Can a non-belligerent attack a neutral-axis?

Axis & Allies Europe 1940

1.3k

D

drmckool
last edited by

hello my question is can a non-belligerent attack a neutral/axis friendly-neutral?
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
K

Krieghund Official Q&A
last edited by

No.
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0

Featured Topics

League rules idea: mulligans for patrons

Guadalcanal Tournament at Strategicon (Los Angeles) Feb. 17, 2024

T-shirts, Hats, and More

global 1940

180

anniversary

1914

1942 2nd ed

tips&tricks

bm3

video

axis & allies

Suggested Topics

R

Sea Lion Attack

Axis & Allies Europe 1940
• • • rmcbride

8

0
Votes

8
Posts

19.1k
Views

J

Even if the thread looks dead, I just would like to underline Brados post, he is absolutely right! I somehow like DD and sub G1 more because usually the sub can go to SZ 125 and can hardly be removed - stealing the +5 from RU which makes Barbarossa easier.

I think sealion for any price does not make sense anyway for DE. Thus give UK the chance to make a mistake.
In case UK does Tarranto attack round 1 (which is imo necessary to keep the balance in the Med) he is indeed forced to go for ground only. Even with 1 fighter 6 inf and 10 inf round 2 German has 68% with a 10 transport sea lion.

However leaving UK with ground only leaves him somehow paralyzed and if dices roll slightly above average in German 1 UK will suffer painful convoy disruptions in Canada and SZ 109 for at least 3 rounds.

However I have to admit that I lack experience how “post sealion” game goes further. Germany does an IPC loss move by taking UK leaving him with 1-.3 ground units and air after the battle and ~34 extra IPCs.
On the other hand RU can take Poland, Slovakia Romania Round 3 giving them a +17 boost. On the other hand Germany has >80 IPcs round 4 allowing them to replace almost the entire ground force he lost in UK.
Plus US can take Brasil earlier and has already a drop in US3 to Gibraltar –> And at least threatens to recapture UK - which is again risky as in case Germany can recapture you shove IPCs in the German’s mouth^^. Looks still unclear to me - a lot of pros and cons.:)

I guess in my next German game I will simply go for that in order to see how this works empirically^^

In my games that never happened so far, would be interested how this would continue^^
S

German Review of Axis and Allies Europe 1940

Axis & Allies Europe 1940
• • • Sofatainer

7

0
Votes

7
Posts

3.0k
Views

?

Ja das ist gut thank you brothers
E

Sahara Dessert, can planes fly over

Axis & Allies Europe 1940
• • • eddiem4145

33

0
Votes

33
Posts

14.0k
Views

K

@eddiem4145:

I want information. Information as to why or where the rule came from and information I do not already know as to what would make it impossible, unlikely, or overly dangerous to fly over the sahara. If there is no info to give, then oh well. My supposedly frustration, (remember, its written, you can’t see my emotions or facial expressions) is from people giving house rules as suppose to the info i was requesting, that is all

I believe it originates between the Classic Map and the Revised Map. In the classics map, only Neutral Territories were represented, and due to the small number of territories and adjacencies, there were balance issues (I’ve seen arguments either way, but in general the smaller number of territories was a problem). In the Revised map, with the addition of more territories, there was probably also a desire to represent more historically accurate unit movements (and reduce axis advantage in snagging parts of africa and vice versa later in the game). The Himalayas isolated India from China, and the Sahara created a buffer between the axis mediterranean territories and british territories directly south.

In Classic, Germany had multiple routes to Africa (go south!). In Revised, there is only one (short of transports) - egypt. The benefit to this was to force egypt to become a back and forth battle between britain and germany as they vie for a strategic advantage.

In order to create a simple rule that aligned with previous mechanics (impassible neutrals), I would imagine that they simply desired these territories to follow the same rules and not allow flyovers either. After all, while it was possible to fly over the sahara and himalayas, it was very dangerous and hardly the preferred route.

As the game map has grown (classics - revised - AA50 - AA40), it has clearly remained a desire by the designer to maintain the strategic route through egypt. And because at the outset of the game allowing flyovers would favor the Axis (far more planes available in close proximity), I would imagine it’s a balance issue as well (at least, early game). Removing the restriction dilutes the value of Egypt.

Satisfied?
L

Blitzing a neutral

Axis & Allies Europe 1940
• • • Llordbone

14

0
Votes

14
Posts

3.0k
Views

B

Krieg’s response to this question on BBG agreed with Wild Bill. (See link below.)

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/570516/tanks
J

When planning attacks do you round up or down the number of hits…

Axis & Allies Europe 1940
• • • JamesAleman

3

0
Votes

3
Posts

1.1k
Views

H

@JamesAleman:

When planning attacks do you round up or down the number of hits you will get as the attacker and the number of hits the defender will get?

To keep it simple in my head, I round my attacks down and the defenders up. If I am likely to win that way, then I will do the attack if it is minor.

Simply put, attacking 5 armor is 2 hits, defending it would be 3. So I would not attack 5 armor with 5 armor as it is a coin toss and to be safe I favor the worst case to keep me from making rash attacks.

So what do you do when planning in your head?

Round them as you stated and assume that any BB/CA amphibious bombardment will miss (and enemy ones will hit) and at least 1 AA hit, depending on the number of planes.
W

Cairo! (axis has it too hard?)

Axis & Allies Europe 1940
• • • Wakrob

7

0
Votes

7
Posts

2.8k
Views

S

If you build a factory in Cairo as UK, its great!! If you can get away with it, which is hard. The best way to do this is to save your transport, not worry about Greece, combine your fleet, bring up some reinforcements from south Africa, and land as many allied aircraft there as you can by turn 3 or 4. If you throw down a factory there by turn 3 or 4, then you have Africa and a sizable fleet to help protect India one the good ole USA puts the vice on Italy.
K

Neutral armies

Axis & Allies Europe 1940
• • • Koningstiger

4

0
Votes

4
Posts

1.3k
Views

F

Even superpowers had a limit on the military establishment it could afford to maintain.

I don’t like the idea of adding units to a small country not at war; however I think the assignment of units to the neutrals could have been more imaginative, for example giving the likes of Brazil and Spain small navies, or Sweden some armour. But these should be a once only build.

Unless perhaps you’d like to give Sweden a minor complex.
D

Neutrals Declare War

Axis & Allies Europe 1940
• • • dakgoalie38

17

0
Votes

17
Posts

2.8k
Views

T

It seems to me WOTC didn’t take into account a free India, a possible repeat of the Bolshevik Revolution in WW1 or NAFTA. Why are you just limited to having the same countries throughout the game? Where’s the army for the Vatican? Why is Somalia worth 1 IPC as opposed to being a unique “-3” territory? Such a waste of $100, where do I get my refund?

197

Online

17.8k

Users

40.4k

Topics

1.8m

Posts